Ironically, after the biopharmaceutical industry turned in a stellar 2014 with 41 new drugs approved by the FDA, many of which were designated as breakthroughs and first-in-class, 2015 has begun with new flurry of Times op-eds critical of the industry. It began with “Stop Subsidizing Big Pharma” by Llewellyn Hinkes-Jones, an essay that, despite the title, doesn’t actually discuss the implied government subsidies of Big Pharma. Rather, the author’s concern focused on philanthropic groups like the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation (CFF) and its funding of research not just in universities and research institutions, but also in biopharmaceutical companies like Vertex. The CFF-Vertex collaboration led to the CF breakthrough drug, Kalydeco. Hinkes-Jones calls this type of interaction ”venture philanthropy” and he believes that this is leading to the privatization of scientific research.

“Instead of decisions about the fate of scientific funding being made by publicly oriented institutions, those decisions are being put in the hands of anonymous philanthropists and ostensibly benevolent nonprofits.”

OK, that view provides interesting fodder for debate. But then he goes off the deep end.

“But while Big Pharma might be faulted for funneling billions of dollars into erectile dysfunction drugs and off-label drug marketing, researching extremely rare diseases may also represent a misuse of public and private funds. Efforts to cure, rather than treat or prevent obscure diseases can be expensive, diverting investment from more common afflictions. The high cost of focusing on rare diseases are then eventually pushed onto the health care system by way of egregiously high drug prices. Such a choice involves an incredibly complex moral calculus, one that is best processed by democratic public institutions.”

Forget the reference to ED drugs, medicines that do serve an important medical need for prostate cancer survivors, and the off-label drug marketing comment, which has nothing to do with the article but perhaps serves to ensure the acceptance of this op-ed by the Times. Anyone with a rare, life-threatening disease has to be both alarmed and offended by this position. To minimize the millions who suffer from these diseases is offensive. Furthermore, if well-meaning philanthropists and organizations want to dedicate themselves to fighting a disease that may have impacted themselves or their family, what right does anyone have to prevent such efforts?

This announcement prompted a critical Times op-ed : “ ‘Moonshot’ Medicine Will let Us Down”. The author, Michael J. Joyner, correctly tries to lower expectations in his essay. For many diseases, such as type 2 diabetes, there are multiple genetic variants all likely to contribute to the disease, making precision medicine a considerable challenge. He also correctly points out that with obesity, poor behaviors, such as low physical activity and high calorie diets may have more of an impact than a genetic variant. However, Joyner is clearly off-base when he minimizes the impact that precision medicine is already having in medicine, especially in cancer.

“We have been down this road before, The idea behind the ‘war on cancer’ was that a deep understanding of the basic biology of cancer would let us develop targeted therapies and cure the disease. Unfortunately, although we know far more today than we did 40-plus years ago, the statistics on cancer deaths have remained incredibly stubborn.”

But the granddaddy of all the negative biopharmaceutical Times op-eds comes from the frequent industry critic, Columbia Professor, Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel laureate in Economics. In his piece, “Don’t Trade Away Our Health” Stiglitz voices concerns about the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) involving representatives from the U.S. and 11 other Pacific Rim countries who are in the midst of trade negotiations, negotiations that have lacked transparency and could result in protection of Big Pharma from competition. As my fellow Forbes.com colleague, Tim Worstall, has pointed out, these are legitimate concerns. However, in his railings against Big Pharma, Stiglitz reverts to a number of unfortunate misrepresentations.

2) “Overly restrictive intellectual property rights actually slow new discoveries by making it more difficult for scientists to build on the research of others and by choking off the exchange of ideas that is critical to innovation.” – This is a stunning misrepresentation of the R&D process in the biopharmaceutical industry. For any investment to be made in R&D, be it the 3 person start-up company or a Big Pharma, the promise of a financial return must exist. An absolute requirement for these investments is having sufficient IP to justify that a project, if successful, will provide such a financial return. “Restrictive IP” actually leads to the investments that scientists need to explore their ideas. The comment that IP restricts the exchange of ideas is naïve, as evidenced by the major medical breakthroughs being announced weekly.

The common thread through all of these New York Times op-ed pieces is that there are issues worth discussing about the biopharmaceutical industry and healthcare. In fact, each case is ripe for dealing with some tough issues that we all face. However, each example also deals with unfounded attacks on the biopharmaceutical industry, none of which are necessary for an intelligent discussion. Furthermore, it could be argued that these criticisms potentially inhibit discussion as they divert attention from the issue at hand. One has to wonder why the New York Times editorial staff allows this. Or, as some believe, does bashing this industry facilitate acceptance to the hallowed pages of this newspaper?